On 09/27/2012 08:38 AM, Akim Demaille wrote: > In fact, one of your initial goal was: > >> > And in the unusual case where >> > where yylval really *isn't* initialized -- because the lexer is >> > buggy -- GCC will issue the warning, which will be a good thing.
> AFAICT, it is not the case, GCC does not complain in the following > attached test case where yylval is _not_ initialized. If memory serves, GCC was correct to not complain in that test case, because the value of yylval was not used. As I understand it, what we have is: * The current situation, where GCC sometimes incorrectly cries wolf. * The simple patch you're proposing, which will cause GCC to sometimes be silent even when there's a real wolf. * The more-complicated patch I'm proposing, which will cause GCC to be more accurate about wolf-reporting. The code's pretty complicated already (it already has gotos into blocks, in other places), and the extra complexity introduced by the more-complicated patch is not really all that much, which is why I proposed it.
